3 ms·

> Thankfully, sanity eventually did prevail in GNOME (just related to this matter, not in general) You've rewritten history to pretend you're right. Then you

by bkor 5y ago

> Thankfully, sanity eventually did prevail in GNOME (just related to this matter, not in general) You've rewritten history to pretend you're right. Then you follow up with more drivel? Sorry, aside from trolling, what is your point?

josephcsible 5y ago
> You've rewritten history This seems pretty clear that GNOME used to depend on systemd. How am I rewriting anything? https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd#Packages_that_formerly_had_a_hard_dependency_on_systemd https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd#Pa...
- zxzax 5y ago
  That's not a full picture, apparently that was due to some specific problem in Gentoo: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/ https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logind... AFAIK the GNOME Wayland session still depends on logind, but that's more because there has been no interest in getting it to work on BSD yet.
- bkor 5y ago
  GNOME relies on some API that has been implemented by elogind. Nothing in this bit changed. Gentoo (I think with the help of some others) ensured it was implemented (forked) so the API could still be used without systemd. I thought you were the same as the other person. You're continuing the same argument, so it really doesn't matter if you're the same or not: "quickly made systemd a hard requirement" is bullshit. Further, it could easily be worked around. If you notice e.g. the history of Ubuntu it happens regularly that you hold back a component if there's a problem integrating it. This happens across multiple distributions. It isn't something unique, nor special. GNOME nor Red Hat did NOT "quickly made systemd a hard requirement". Gentoo was great to ensure that the API that was depended upon was implemented separately. Aside from that, a distribution could also hold back the logind change that caused this change. Skipping over all of these details is great to make this into some big conspiracy story. However, it is rewriting history. It wasn't something unique. Yeah, GNOME release team misjudged one thing. But it actually took a few years before it became an issue. Not this drivel with "OMG they added a hard dependency". It wasn't like that.

by bkor 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

> You've rewritten history This seems pretty clear that GNOME used to depend on systemd. How am I rewriting anything? https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd#Packages_that_formerly_had_a_hard_dependency_on_systemd https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd#Pa...

zxzax 5y ago
That's not a full picture, apparently that was due to some specific problem in Gentoo: https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/ https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logind... AFAIK the GNOME Wayland session still depends on logind, but that's more because there has been no interest in getting it to work on BSD yet.
bkor 5y ago
GNOME relies on some API that has been implemented by elogind. Nothing in this bit changed. Gentoo (I think with the help of some others) ensured it was implemented (forked) so the API could still be used without systemd. I thought you were the same as the other person. You're continuing the same argument, so it really doesn't matter if you're the same or not: "quickly made systemd a hard requirement" is bullshit. Further, it could easily be worked around. If you notice e.g. the history of Ubuntu it happens regularly that you hold back a component if there's a problem integrating it. This happens across multiple distributions. It isn't something unique, nor special. GNOME nor Red Hat did NOT "quickly made systemd a hard requirement". Gentoo was great to ensure that the API that was depended upon was implemented separately. Aside from that, a distribution could also hold back the logind change that caused this change. Skipping over all of these details is great to make this into some big conspiracy story. However, it is rewriting history. It wasn't something unique. Yeah, GNOME release team misjudged one thing. But it actually took a few years before it became an issue. Not this drivel with "OMG they added a hard dependency". It wasn't like that.